Posted on 07/26/2010 3:08:04 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Matthew Simmons has made a lot of big claims about the oil spill (see videos below).
Because of his background, Simmons has been interviewed repeatedly in television, newspaper and radio media. Simmons was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush, is an adviser to the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, and is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations, and is former chairman and CEO of Simmons & Company International, an investment bank catering to oil companies.
People have become polarized around Simmons as a lightning rod. For example, people who believe all of Simmons' claims believe that anyone who questions any of Simmons's claims is working for BP. On the other extreme, people who think Simmons has gone senile or is simply talking his book (he's short BP) tar and feather anyone who questions BP's version of the Gulf narrative as being a crazy Simmons follower.
So let's assess Simmons' claims one-by-one. And - more importantly - let's refocus the discussion away from one person and towards the Gulf itself (Simmons himself will either be vindicated, proven off-base, or something in between. But that is his personal concern, not ours).
BP's stock Will Go to Zero
Simmons predicts that BP's stock will go to zero. he might be right. Fines under the Clean Water Act are $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. And civil and criminal damages could be substantial.
But BP has been doing everything in its power to lowball the amount of oil spilled into the Gulf (and see this), even though it easily could have easily quantified
how much oil is spilling.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Zer0 is the ground strap.
lengthy read .
**************************************************EXCERPT******************************************
by M4570D0N
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 03:33
#488322
GW, why have you not included Simmon's claims that methane pressure at the wellhead is at 40,000psi, a flow rate of at least double the maximum estimate provided by the FRTG, or some giant crater that will cause a tsunami, among all the other ridiculous claims you are leaving out? How anyone can honestly tell themselves that Matt Simmons' statement do not strike them as delusional (at best), should really consider seeking medical help.
*********************************************************************
by Popo
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 04:00
#488340
While Simmons may well be right, it must be noted that he is one of the largest, most powerful and most connected investors in the oil business.
To say that he has an agenda would be a massive understatement.
On the other hand -- Simmons has been right far too many times to be discounted. ... Just take it all with a few grains of salt. The man has a mission...
**********************************************************************
by snakehead
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 05:04
#488358
GW, WTF? You title a section 'There is a "Lake of Oil" in the Gulf' and then write "I don't know about this claim." Simmons is clear that it's a "lake" of thick, black oil that he believes is there. In a particularly nefarious move he's claimed that that's what staff aboard the Thomas Jefferson relayed to him and that it's in their reports, which is clearly untrue. Not dispersed "plumes" measured in ppm, but a lake. Thick, black oil. In fact, the claimed size of Lake Simmons would hold ~250 times the world's known reserves. If that's not enough to just stop right there, what would be?
What's next, vaccines cause autism? And why is ZH putting this junk up top?
Bookmarked.
Thank you.
BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - After the Storm - and Open Thread
**************************************************************
by TomJoad
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 09:37
#488511
I haven't been posting on this subject because the misinformation has been so entertaining. I am on scene on one of the largest oceanographic research vessels working in the GOM. I am not being paid by NOAA or BP. This is a factual statement: Beyond 20 NM from the wellhead we have not detected subsurface oil at any depth in concentrations above 20PPM, beyond 40NM we have not detected any oil above 2PPM that was associated with Deepwater Horizon. We have seen the usual seep concentrations around Vioska Knoll, Green Canyon, etc.
Matt Simmons or no matt Simmons, I think BP, with a lot of help from their pal, Obama is not being straight on the conditions faced by the public out of self interst. I watch what they do; not what they yap in the parrot mainstream Obamamedia.
So far, we have been put through a lot of crap and I think the latest cap is crap too because there are leaks in the sea bed. There are two wells - A. and B. Because there is a cap on truth, we don’t know anything about either one. So, in my opinion, all the gyrations of fixing the leak are for public consumtpion. If their next “fix” - the relief wells fail, you can admit that I am right. They are just holding public rage at bay with a lot of nonsense. The final fix is to nuke it and they already know that is what they are going to do.
The article states it is not known, the toxic mix of the oil and corexit although they admit it is deadly to amimals. That is true for someone who has not read anything beyond BP’s/Obama’s propaganda. Hint, if it is dangerous to animals - it is dangerous to humans and if it is dangerous to humans and animals, they have killed life in the Gulf. Unless humans are stupid enough to swim in a toxic brew that “only kills animals.”
******************************************************************************
by TomJoad
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 09:53
#488547
Just wanted to add that out of tens of thousands of samples, the positive hits are coming from extremely limited areas "Plumes" which are measured in tens and perhaps hundreds of meters, not in miles. I have access to all of the raw and preliminary data coming in from 8 of the vessels sampling for the SMU (Subsurface Monitoring Unit)
****************************************************************************
by TomJoad
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 11:32
#488626
Would you also like my social security number? How about the number for the tech at Turner Designs who calibrated our cyclops c6? I am not authorized to be releasing this info, it is all going to litigation. Just trying to add a dose of reality for my old pals at ZH, this same kind of nonsense is going on over at TOD. I'll cut and paste some data on determination of crude concentrations via CDOM and Dissolved Oxygen if it would make you feel any better.
Don't get me wrong I think this is a very serious event, I think bio-accumulations of primary and secondary metabolic by-products all the way up and down the food chain is the big story here. Most people in the science community are appalled by the basically unrestricted use of Corexit. The full story won't be known for years but all this Tinfoil hat Simmons crap is counterproductive. I don't know what his motive is but it certainly isn't the dissemination of facts
***********************************************************************
by M4570D0N
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 15:02
#489058
+1
I find the Simmons armageddon crowd to be about on the level of the fringe AGW claiming just a few years ago that Greenland's ice sheet already doomed to raise sea levels by 7 meters, that AGW caused Hurricane Katrina, that we should start eating our dogs and have chickens as pets instead (and eat them too) to cut down on GHG emissions, or (my most recent favorite) that early man hunting the wooly mammoth 15,000yrs ago started AGW. Ridiculous claims like these do nothing but impede the progression of intelligent discussion of the issue. It eats away at the credibility of the more level-headed pro-AGW crowd and serves as an affirmation to those that hold all aspects of climate science as nothing but a farce.
(And I realize there is a middle ground, but I'm sure you all get the point)
***********************************************************************************
by AssFire
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 11:47
#488711
It seems a miracle that our beloved leader was able to convince BP to establish a $20 billion slush (oops, escrow) fund to compensate those hurt by the ongoing oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico. After all, he had no constitutional power to force them to do so; so had to resort to Chicago-style negotiating.
But, let us take a closer look at the effect on BP's finances:
1. BP will establish a $20 billion fund, but will pay only $7 billion into it during 2010.
2. BP is a British corporation, but has a very large operating entity in the U.S.
3. By Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, BP must book the entire $20 billion expense in the year accrued. Therefore, they will book a $20 billion expense in 2010, reducing their U.S. tax liability by $7 billion.
4. Our dear leader also convinced this massive corporation to show their concern for the "small people" by withholding dividends to their shareholders for the last three quarters of 2010. This reduces their outward cash flow by about $7.5 billion, including approximately 40 percent of that amount to U.S. citizens. Assuming the Bush tax cuts will survive through 2010, the U.S. Treasury will lose another $450 million in taxes on that amount. We won't even discuss the effect on the U.S. economy.
Let us review the results:
BP Cash Flow:
Escrow funding ($7 billion)
Dividend saving $7.5 billion
Tax savings $7 billion
Net favorable cash flow : $7.5 billion
US Treasury Tax Receipts:
BP Corporate income tax ($7.5 billion)
BP Shareholders ($0.45 billion)
Net unfavorable tax receipts ($7.95 billion)
I guess we really should expect this. After all, our dear leader is the most inexperienced man in any room he walks into.
It is really hard to sort out all of the DoomsDay talk as I see it.
Sometimes situations are not pretty and are downright doomy. Especially with the wonderkid in power.
Matt Simmons is a raving lunatic, ‘George Washington’ is simply nuts.
The oil-Corexit mix it toxic to FISH, not "animals". The reason it is toxic is that FISH extract oxygen directly from the water, and the surfactants in the Corexit damage their gills. Anything that breaths AIR directly will not be affected. And no, it is NOT possible to aerosolize enough of the Corexit-oil dilute "plumes" to cause problems to humans or animals. Even a hurricane won't. The original concentrations in the Gulf are simply too low.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Are whales and dolphins fishies or mammals?
“Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.[23][14] The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[24] According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people “respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders”.[16] Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also cause internal bleeding.[4]”
~~~
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oG72qhME5MPTYBk0lXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0aWkxOGU3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTAEY29sbwNhYzIEdnRpZANCMllZMV84Nw—/SIG=11p191cnm/EXP=1280279073/**http%3a//www.valdezlink.com/corexit.htm
~~~
You only need to search > Corexit < and you will see that
it IS toxic,,,
As for using a nuke to stop this oil and gas flow,,,
That's just foolish!,,,
The only way to cap/kill this well is to drill wells all
the way around it and lay another pipeline to Port Fourchon
and pull down the field,,,
They've done this for many years and it is proven to work...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.